PursuantToRepublicAct(R.A.)No.

6770,OtherwiseKnown
AsTheOmbudsmanActOf1989,TheOmbudsmanIsLegally
AuthorizedToDirectlyImposeAdministrativePenalties
AgainstErrantPublicServants...TheLawyer'sPost
TheFacts:
Gilda(Daradal)filedacaseforsexualharassmentandoppressionbeforetheOfficeoftheOmbudsman(OMB)againstPrudencio
(Ramos).Accordingtoher,shewascalledtohisofficebyPrudencioandaskedtomassagehisforehead.Whiledoingso,
Prudenciomadesexualinnuendosagainsther,inthepresenceofhercoemployees.ByvirtueofaMemorandum,shewasdetailed
totheCivilServiceCommissionofficeinCatbalogan,Samartoperformthedutyofamaleutilitypersonnelandexcludedfromthe
payrollfromAugust1631,1996becausesherefusedtosubmittohissexualadvances.Inhisdefense,PrudencioallegedthatGilda
wasaVIPemployeewhorebelledagainsthimwhenherequiredhertowork.Duringthependencyofthecase,Gildasubmittedan
affidavitofwithdrawalofhercaseagainstPrudencio,whichtheOMBdenied.Afterhearings,theOMBimposeduponPrudenciothe
penaltyofsixmonthssuspensionwithoutpayforallegedlycommittingoppression,whiledismissingthecaseforsexualharassment
againsthim.PrudenciothusfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeasl,whichgrantedit,andreversedtheOMB
decision.CitingthecaseofTapiadorvsOfficeoftheOmbudsman1,theCAruledthatunderSection13,subparagraph(3)ofArticle
XIofthe1987Constitution,theOMBcanonlyrecommend,butnotdirectlyimposethepenaltyuponerringgovernmentofficials.
TheOMBfiledamotionforreconsideration,butitwasdeniedbytheCA,averringthatitisGilda,thepersonwhoisadversely
affectedbyitsruling,andwhoistherealpartyininterest,whocanappealthedecision.TheOMBislikeajudgewhoshoulddetach
itselffromcaseswhereitsdecisionwasappealedtohighercourts,thustheOMBhadnorighttoappealtheCAdecision.Posturing
itselfasthechampionofthepeoplesinterest,itelevateditscasetotheSupremeCourt,arguingthattheTapiadorrulinghadbeen
rejectedbytheCourtinnumerouscasesasamereobiterdictum.ItaddedithasthelegalinteresttoappealtheCAdecision.

TheIssue/s:
1.WhethertheOfficeoftheOmbdusmanmaydirectlyimpose,notmerelyrecommend,itspenaltyuponerringgovernmentofficials.
2.Whetheritmayappealanadversedecisioninadministrativecasesagainsterringgovernmentofficials.

TheCourtsruling:
TheCourtgrantstheOmbudsmanspetition.

PreliminarymattersTheOmbudsmanhasthepowertodirectlyimposeadministrativepenaltiesagainstpublic
officialsoremployees.
InthecaseofOmbudsmanv.Apolonio2,theCourtcategoricallydelineatedtheOmbudsmanspowertodirectlyimpose,notmerely
recommend,administrativesanctionsagainsterringpublicofficialsoremployees,viz:
TheOmbudsmanhasthepowertoimposethepenaltyofremoval,suspension,demotion,fine,censure,orprosecutionofapublic
officeroremployee,intheexerciseofitsadministrativedisciplinaryauthority.ThechallengetotheOmbudsmanspowertoimpose
thesepenalties,ontheallegationthattheConstitutiononlygrantsitrecommendatorypowers,hadalreadybeenrejectedbythis
Court.
TheCourtfirstrejectedthisinterpretationinLedesmav.CourtofAppeals,wheretheCourt,speakingthroughMme.JusticeYnares
Santiago,held:
ThecreationoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanisauniquefeatureofthe1987Constitution.TheOmbudsmanandhisdeputies,as
protectorsofthepeople,aremandatedtoactpromptlyoncomplaintsfiledinanyformormanneragainstofficersoremployeesof
theGovernment,orofanysubdivision,agencyorinstrumentalitythereof,includinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations.
Foremostamongitspowersistheauthoritytoinvestigateandprosecutecasesinvolvingpublicofficersandemployees,thus:
Section13.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethefollowingpowers,functions,andduties:
(1)Investigateonitsown,oroncomplaintbyanyperson,anyactoromissionofanypublicofficial,employee,officeoragency,

whensuchactoromissionappearstobeillegal,unjust,improper,orinefficient.
RepublicActNo.6770,otherwiseknownasTheOmbudsmanActof1989,waspassedintolawonNovember17,1989andprovided
forthestructuralandfunctionalorganizationoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman.RA6770mandatedtheOmbudsmanandhis
deputiesnotonlytoactpromptlyoncomplaintsbutalsotoenforcetheadministrative,civilandcriminalliabilityofgovernment
officersandemployeesineverycasewheretheevidencewarrantstopromoteefficientservicebytheGovernmenttothepeople.
TheauthorityoftheOmbudsmantoconductadministrativeinvestigationsasinthepresentcaseissettled.Section19ofRA6770
provides:
SEC.19.AdministrativeComplaints.TheOmbudsmanshallactonallcomplaintsrelating,butnotlimitedtoactsoromissions
which:
(1)Arecontrarytolaworregulation
(2)Areunreasonable,unfair,oppressiveordiscriminatory
(3)Areinconsistentwiththegeneralcourseofanagencysfunctions,thoughinaccordancewithlaw
(4)Proceedfromamistakeoflaworanarbitraryascertainmentoffacts
(5)Areintheexerciseofdiscretionarypowersbutforanimproperpurposeor
(6)Areotherwiseirregular,immoralordevoidofjustification.
ThepointofcontentionisthebindingpowerofanydecisionororderthatemanatesfromtheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanafterithas
conducteditsinvestigation.UnderSection13(3)ofArticleXIofthe1987Constitution,itisprovided:
Section13.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethefollowingpowers,functions,andduties:
xxxx
(3)Directtheofficerconcernedtotakeappropriateactionagainstapublicofficialoremployeeatfault,andrecommendhisremoval,
suspension,demotion,fine,censure,orprosecution,andensurecompliancetherewith.(Emphasis,underscoringanditalizationin
theoriginal.)
InLedesmav.CourtofAppeals(Ledesma),3theCourtdefinitivelystatedthatthestatementinTapiadorregardingtheOmbudsmans
powerwasmerelyanobiterdictumand,assuch,couldnotbecitedasadoctrinalpronouncement.Thus:
xxx[A]cursoryreadingofTapiadorrevealsthatthemainpointofthecasewasthefailureofthecomplainantthereintopresent
substantialevidencetoprovethechargesoftheadministrativecase.Thestatementthatmadereferencetothepowerofthe
Ombudsmanis,atbest,merelyanobiterdictumand,asitisunsupportedbysufficientexplanation,issusceptibletovarying
interpretations,aswhatpreciselyisbeforeusinthiscase.Hence,itcannotbecitedasadoctrinaldeclarationofthisCourtnorisit
safefromjudicialexamination.
TheimportoftheLedesmarulingiscrystalclear.AlthoughthetenorofthetextinSection13(3),ArticleXI 4oftheConstitution
merelyindicatesarecommendatoryfunction,thisdoesnotdivestCongressofitsplenarylegislativepowertovestthe
OmbudsmanpowersbeyondthosestatedintheConstitutionalprovision.PursuanttoRepublicAct(R.A.)No.6770,otherwise
knownasTheOmbudsmanActof1989,theOmbudsmanislegallyauthorizedtodirectlyimposeadministrativepenaltiesagainst
errantpublicservants.Further,themanifestintentofthelawmakerswastobestowontheOmbudsmanfulladministrative
disciplinaryauthorityinaccordwiththeconstitutionaldeliberations.UnliketheOmbudsmanlikeagenciesofthepast,thepowersof
whichextendtonomorethanmakingfindingsoffactandrecommendations,andtheOmbudsmanorTanodbayanunderthe1973
Constitutionwhomightfileandprosecutecriminal,civiloradministrativecasesagainstpublicofficialsandemployeesonlyincases
offailureofjustice,thecurrentOmbudsman,underthe1987ConstitutionandR.A.No.6770,isintendedtoplayamoreactiverolein
theenforcementoflawsonantigraftandcorruptpracticesandotheroffensescommittedbypublicofficersandemployees.The
Ombudsmanistobeanactivistwatchman,notmerelyapassiveone.Heisvestedwithbroadpowerstoenablehimtoimplement
hisownactions5.

TheOmbudsmanhasthelegalinteresttointerveneintheproceedingsbeforetheCA.
TheissueofwhetherornottheOmbudsmanpossessestherequisitelegalinteresttointerveneintheproceedingswhereits
decisionisatriskofbeinginappropriatelyimpairedhasbeenlaidtorestinOmbudsmanv.DeChavez6.Inthesaidcase,theCourt
conclusivelyruledthateveniftheOmbudsmanwasnotimpleadedasapartyintheproceedings,partofitsbroadpowersinclude
defendingitsdecisionsbeforetheCA.AndpursuanttoSection1ofRule19oftheRulesofCourt7,theOmbudsmanmayvalidly
interveneinthesaidproceedingsasitslegalinterestonthematterisbeyondcavil.TheCourtelucidated,thus:

xxxtheOmbudsmanisinaleagueofitsown.Itisdifferentfromotherinvestigatoryandprosecutoryagenciesofthegovernment
becausethepeopleunderitsjurisdictionarepublicofficialswho,throughpressureandinfluence,canquash,delayordismiss
investigationsdirectedagainstthem.Itsfunctioniscriticalbecausepublicinterest(intheaccountabilityofpublicofficersand
employees)isatstake.
xxx
TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmansufficientlyallegeditslegalinterestinthesubjectmatteroflitigation.Paragraph2ofitsmotionfor
interventionandtoadmittheattachedmotiontorecallwritofpreliminaryinjunctionaverred:
2.Asacompetentdiscipliningbody,theOmbudsmanhastherighttoseekredressontheapparentlyerroneousissuancebythis
HonorableCourtoftheWritofPreliminaryInjunctionenjoiningtheimplementationoftheOmbudsmansJointDecisionxxxx.
Inassertingthatitwasacompetentdiscipliningbody,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmancorrectlysummedupitslegalinterestinthe
matterincontroversy.Insupportofitsclaim,itinvokeditsroleasaconstitutionallymandatedprotectorofthepeople,a
disciplinaryauthorityvestedwithquasijudicialfunctiontoresolveadministrativedisciplinarycasesagainstpublicofficials.Tohold
otherwisewouldhavebeentantamounttoabdicatingitssalutaryfunctionsastheguardianofpublictrustandaccountability.
Moreover,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmanhadaclearlegalinterestintheinquiryintowhetherrespondentcommittedacts
constitutinggravemisconduct,anoffensepunishableundertheUniformRulesinAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService.Itwasin
keepingwithitsdutytoactasachampionofthepeopleandpreservetheintegrityofpublicservicethatpetitionerhadtobegiven
theopportunitytoactfullywithintheparametersofitsauthority.
Itistruethatunderourruleonintervention,theallowanceordisallowanceofamotiontointerveneislefttothesounddiscretionof
thecourtafteraconsiderationoftheappropriatecircumstances.However,suchdiscretionisnotwithoutlimitations.Oneofthe
limitsintheexerciseofsuchdiscretionisthatitmustnotbeexercisedindisregardoflawandtheConstitution.TheCAshouldhave
consideredthenatureoftheOmbudsmanspowersasprovidedintheConstitutionandRA6770.
xxxx
BoththeCAandrespondentlikenedtheOfficeoftheOmbudsmantoajudgewhosedecisionwasinquestion.Thiswasatadtoo
simplistic(orperhapsevenratherdisdainful)ofthepower,dutiesandfunctionsoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman.TheOfficeofthe
Ombudsmancannotbedetached,disinterestedandneutralspeciallywhendefendingitsdecisions.Moreover,inadministrative
casesagainstgovernmentpersonnel,theoffenseiscommittedagainstthegovernmentandpublicinterest.Whatfurtherproofofa
directconstitutionalandlegalinterestintheaccountabilityofpublicofficersisnecessary?(Italicssupplied.Citationsomitted.)
Ascanbegleanedfromtheforegoingdisquisition,theCA,inthepresentcase,gravelyerredindisallowingtheOmbudsmans
motiontointervene.ItfailedtoconsidertheessenceoftheOmbudsmansconstitutionallyandstatutorilyconferredpowers
establishingitsclearlegalinterestinensuringthatitsdirectivebeimplemented.

SubstantiveAspect
Significantly,SectionA,Subsection13ofCivilServiceCommissionMemorandumCircularNo.30,seriesof1989(CSCMCNo.30),
theapplicablerulethen,expresslyprovides:
A.GraveOffenses
xxxx
13.Oppression
1stOffenseSuspensionforsix(6)monthsandone(1)daytoone(1)year
2ndOffenseDismissal.
Inthepresentcase,theOmbudsmanfoundQuimboadministrativelyliableforthegraveoffenseofOppressionandcorrespondingly
metedoutapenaltyofsuspensionforsix(6)monthswithoutpay.WhilehisadministrativeliabilityforOppressionisundisputed,it
behoovestheCourttoadjustthepenaltyimposeduponhimtoconformtoCSCMCNo.30.Accordingly,theCourtfindsitnecessary
tomodifythepenaltytosuspensionforsix(6)monthsandone(1)daywithoutpaytoaccuratelyreflecttheclassificationofthe
offenseforwhichhewasfoundliable.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheJanuary21,2005DecisionandtheMay2,2006ResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,
CebuCityinCAG.R.SPNo.54737areherebyNULLIFIEDandSETASIDE.TheDecember9,1998ResolutionandtheApril15,1999
OrderoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman,inOMBVISADM960486,areherebyREINSTATEDwithMODIFICATIONthatthepenaltyof
SUSPENSIONtobeimposeduponPrudencioC.QuimbobeforSIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)DAYwithoutpay.

SOORDERED.

SECONDDIVISION,G.R.No.173277,February25,2015,OFFICEOFTHEOMBUDSMAN,
PETITIONER,VS.PRUDENCIOC.QUIMBO,COURTOFAPPEALS,20THDIVISION,CEBU
CITY,RESPONDENTS.
1

429Phil.47(2002).

2G.R.No.165132,March7,2012,667SCRA583,592594
3

503Phil.396(2005).

Section13.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethefollowingpowers,functions,andduties:

xxxx
3.Directtheofficerconcernedtotakeappropriateactionagainstapublicofficialoremployeeatfa
5

Ombudsmanv.Masing,566Phil.253,268269(2008).

6G.R.No.172206,July3,2013,700SCRA399,404406,citingOmbudsmanv.Samaniego,586Phil.497(2008)
7

Section1.Whomayintervene.Apersonwhohasalegalinterestinthematterinlitigation,orinthesuccessofeitheroftheparties,oraninterest
againstboth,orissosituatedastobeadverselyaffectedbyadistributionorotherdispositionofpropertyinthecustodyofthecourtorofanofficer
thereofmay,withleaveofcourt,beallowedtointerveneintheaction.Thecourtshallconsiderwhetherornottheinterventionwillundulydelayor
prejudicetheadjudicationoftherightsoftheoriginalparties,andwhetherornottheintervenorsrightsmaybefullyprotectedinaseparateproceeding.

Likethis:
Loading...